Maskell v. Ross

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING #5 Report and Recommendations in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint #1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 26, 2024. (tmc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:24-cv-1005

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
QUINCY ROSS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A.
Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 5. After screening
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge Bryant recommends that
Plaintiff Adam Maskell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant Quincy Ross be dismissed with
prejudice because Defendant Ross is entitled to judicial immunity.
Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 6. However, Plaintiff offers no coherent argument as
to why Judge Bryant’s application of judicial immunity to Defendant Ross is incorrect. Plaintiff’s scattered
arguments are singularly directed at the alleged actions of a “Judge Puryear,” who is not named as a
defendant in this matter. Thus, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s objection sufficiently specific to
require a de novo review of Judge Bryant’s R&R. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994)
(noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation
instead of a review for plain error).
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s reasoning is
sound, the Court adopts the R&R in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because Defendant Ross is entitled to judicial immunity for all of
Plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge